Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vinay Sharma, a death-row convict in the Nirbhaya gang rape case, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President of India. The case involved the gang rape and murder of a woman in Delhi on 16/17 December 2012. The trial court convicted the petitioner and co-accused under various sections of the IPC and imposed the death sentence, which was confirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The review petition and curative petition were dismissed. The petitioner's mercy petition was rejected by the President on 1 February 2020. The petitioner raised several grounds: non-furnishing of relevant materials under RTI, non-consideration of relevant material, torture, mental illness, consideration of irrelevant material, and illegal solitary confinement. The court examined the scope of judicial review of mercy petitions under Article 72, noting that the President's power is a constitutional duty exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, subject to limited judicial review. The court found that all relevant materials, including medical records and Social Investigation Report, were placed before the President. The medical report indicated the petitioner was psychologically stable, and there was no evidence of solitary confinement. The court held that the grounds raised did not fall within the limited scope of judicial review and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Mercy Petition - Article 72 of the Constitution of India - Judicial Review - The President's power to grant pardon is a constitutional duty exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, subject to limited judicial review. The court can examine whether relevant materials were considered and if the decision was arbitrary or mala fide. (Paras 10-12) B) Criminal Law - Death Sentence - Commutation - Grounds of Mental Illness and Solitary Confinement - The petitioner claimed mental illness and solitary confinement as grounds for commutation. The court noted that medical reports indicated the petitioner was psychologically stable and that he was not kept in solitary confinement but in a single room with iron bars, intermittently mingling with other prisoners. (Paras 7-8) C) Criminal Law - Mercy Petition - Consideration of Relevant Materials - The petitioner alleged that relevant materials like Social Investigation Report and medical records were not placed before the President. The Solicitor General submitted that all relevant documents, including medical records and Social Investigation Report, were placed before the President. The court found no merit in the petitioner's contention. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the mercy petition by the President of India under Article 72 of the Constitution is vitiated due to non-consideration of relevant materials, illegal solitary confinement, mental illness, and other grounds raised by the petitioner.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the grounds raised by the petitioner did not fall within the limited scope of judicial review of the President's order rejecting the mercy petition. The court found that all relevant materials were considered and there was no evidence of solitary confinement or mental illness warranting interference.
Law Points
- Judicial review of mercy petition rejection under Article 72 is limited
- President's power is constitutional duty exercised on aid and advice of Council of Ministers
- relevant materials must be considered
- solitary confinement and mental illness as grounds for commutation require proof
- scope of review is narrow.
